Patients’ preferences in transplantation from marginal donors: results of a discrete choice experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To increase the donor pool, the strategy of transplantation from "marginal" donors was developed though patients' preferences about these donors were insufficiently known. The preferences of patients registered on the waiting list or already transplanted in eight transplant teams covering four main organs (i.e., kidney, liver, heart, and lung) were evaluated using the discrete choice experiment method. In each left during 2 days, patients were interviewed on four scenarios. Of 178 eligible patients, 167 were interviewed; 40% accepted marginal graft in their own situation and 89% at least in one of the scenarios. Imagining urgent situations or rare profiles with difficult access to transplantation, respectively, 86% and 71% accepted these grafts. Most (76%) preferred to be informed about these grafts and 43% preferred to be involved in decision. The emergency [OR = 1.24; 95% CI: (1.06-1.45)] and the hazardousness [OR = 0.88; 95% CI: (0.78-0.99)] of the transplantation were factors independently associated with marginal graft acceptance. Most patients preferred to be informed and to be involved in the decision. Marginal grafts could be more accepted by patients in critical medical situations or perceiving their situation as critical. Physicians' practices in transplantation should be reconsidered taking into account individual preferences. This study was performed in a single country and thus reflects the cultural bias and practice thereof.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".